We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

T.J. Simers, a well-known former sports columnist for the Los Angeles Times, is suing the Times for age and disability discrimination and is seeking $18 million. We’re providing regular coverage and analysis of the jury trial, which is expected to last about another week. For the background on what the case is all about, go here. For the testimony of Mr. Simers’ psychiatrist, go here. For a roundup of all of the first three weeks’ trial testimony (pretty interesting), go here and here. For last week’s developments, go here.

Last week, I mentioned that I still didn’t really understand what “ethical breach” Mr. Simers had allegedly committed, and I threw out a request for help from someone (anyone?) with a media background.

Boy, did I ever get my wish.

Someone who has been following my blog posts on the trial called me this week and shared a lot of information. The individual asked to remain anonymous, and I’m going to respect that. I will say that this is someone who has a significant interest in the case. Opposing anonymous sources are welcome, too. :-)

The LA Times Ethics Guidelines

The Times Ethics Guidelines is posted on the internet, and it was obviously written by news people and not lawyers because you can understand it. (NOTE: I’m linking to the 2011 version because the 2015 current version was not published until after Mr. Simers was long gone.)

Generally, newsroom people are not allowed to endorse political candidates and have to make disclosures whenever they are covering someone they have an “interest” in. For example, if I were assigned to cover a scandal that involved my mother, I would be expected to disclose to my editors that my mother was involved so that they could decide whether that would affect my ability to tell it like it is. (Not that my mom would ever be involved in a scandal.)

Too cozy with Mattel?

Mr. Simers is known as an active supporter of the Mattel Children’s Hospital at UCLA. Nothing wrong with that, but his advocacy reportedly caused some hard feelings among other worthy hospitals in LA, and there have been instances in which Mr. Simers allegedly provided positive news coverage of athletes and even entire sports in exchange for donations to the hospital.

For example, Mr. Simers wasn’t into stock car racing. But in 2006, he wrote a light-hearted column in which he agreed to “consider” the sport if the California Speedway donated $500 to the Mattel Children’s Hospital. He agreed to “like” stock car racing if the Speedway donated $1,000. I’m not saying “alleged” because it’s all in this column.

(According to the column, the offer was made to Mr. Simers by the president of the California Speedway, not vice versa.)

Now, if I were Mr. Simers, I’d say, “Yeah, but this was nine years ago, and seven years before I was demoted, and the Times could have refused to run my column. Since they let the column run, couldn’t that lead me to reasonably believe that this was not an ethical violation?” Fair point. Let’s move on.

Mr. Tollin is one of the founding partners of Mandalay Sports Entertainment, the company that produced Mr. Simers’ video starring Mr. Simers, his daughter, and former LA Laker Dwight Howard. (More on the video below.)

According to my source, Mr. Simers had a longstanding relationship with Mr. Tollin and was pitching his own sitcom script to Mandalay through Mr. Tollin. Mr. Simers allegedly did not disclose this relationship to the Times.

(Law360 has reported that Mr. Simers allegedly told the Times there was “no script,” even though the HR Director found it in his email account. Mr. Tollin agreed with Mr. Simers in testimony on Wednesday of this week, and said that Mr. Simers did not lie to Times management. According to Mr. Tollin’s testimony, “All we had was some general conversations and a loose treatment that was nowhere close to being presentable. I don’t think it was marketable or sellable, and I think it would have required a lot of, in the industry we say, heavy lifting.” Reading between the lines, this sounds to me like there was a script, or at least an outline – just not a very good one. So I’m going to proceed as if Mr. Simers was actively trying to sell a sitcom “concept” to Mr. Tollin. If so, then that should still trigger his ethical and conflict-of-interest disclosure obligations.)

In 2012, Mr. Simers did a column on Norwegian Olympic gold-medal skater Johann Olav Koss, who had been the subject of a well-received ESPN documentary entitled “Right To Play.” According to Mr. Simers, a “friend asks me to do him a favor and meet the skater,” and “I could not afford to blow him off.” The column about the skater and the documentary was very warm and fuzzy.

Not that Mr. Koss’s story is not inspiring — it is — but if Mr. Simers was pitching his own sitcom “concept” to Mr. Tollin while covering a documentary that Mr. Tollin had asked him to cover and for which Mr. Tollin was executive producer, resulting in a very warm and fuzzy column from the normally “acerbic” Mr. Simers — then that’s not cool unless Mr. Simers had disclosed beforehand that his unnamed “friend” was Mr. Tollin and the significance of that. And his relationship with Mr. Tollin probably should have been disclosed in the column, too, for the benefit of his readers.

Which brings us back to . . .

The Dwight Howard YouTube video

Remember this? “Howard vs. Housewife”? Here it is again, so you don’t have to go back through my old posts:

My source explained that it was fine, and even expected, for Times columnists and reporters to pitch and sell scripts for TV shows and movies, as well as try to get book deals. After all, they are writers. But what isn’t fine is to cover — as a reporter or columnist — the person (or entity) to whom you’re trying to sell your projects. Because if you do, you may not be objective — you may be unduly “warm and fuzzy,” or you might even agree to “advertise” for him.

This is why you need to provide full disclosure to your editors beforehand. That, the source said, is where Mr. Simers went wrong.

And, testimony from the Times has been that after publication of the video and Mr. Simers’ column about it, he not only “failed to disclose” but actually lied, by denying that he’d had dealings with Mr. Tollin or that he was selling a script, even though the HR Director had already found both in his email account.

(In light of Mr. Tollin’s testimony this week that there was indeed no “script,” I wonder if the Times kept a copy. In any event, as far as Mr. Simers’ ethical obligations to the Times, I’m not sure it makes much difference whether it was a finished script, a first draft of a script, and outline of a script, or just a “concept.” The point is, he’s trying to sell something to Mr. Tollin while also covering Mr. Tollin or Mr. Tollin’s projects.)

One last thing – you know that bet that Dwight Howard lost by shooting free throws with his left hand? Guess who Mr. Howard had to pay? Mattel Children’s Hospital at UCLA.

And now, for your entertainment . . . Shattered Glass.

If you’ve made it this far, then bless you! And we have one other tidbit about the trial that may be neither here nor there but sure is bizarre. I got this information from the source, and also saw it in a web posting that came out right after my blog post last Friday.

They made a very good movie about Mr. Glass and his fabrications in 2003. You may recall that he enrolled in law school after he left TNR, got his degree, and then couldn’t get admitted to the practice of law because of what happened at TNR. (He withdrew his application in New York after it appeared that he would be rejected, and then applied in California. After Mr. Glass won a few victories in California, followed by appeals by the State Bar, the state Supreme Court finally rejected his application for admission once and for all, finding that there was insufficient evidence that he had really changed his ways.)

Related topic hubs

Compare jurisdictions: Employment: USA

“I find the articles on the Lexology newsfeed very relevant and up to date on a variety of topics of interest to my areas of practice. The authors are reliable and current on the topics about which they opine. Even when several law firms write on the same topic, I can often glean new viewpoints and perspectives from the different firms. The headings are also helpful because they briefly and accurately describe the topic and enable me to quickly and efficiently decide what I may or may not want to read in more detail."